Ghosting the Machine: Judicial Resistance to a Recidivism Risk Assessment Instrument

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.06573v1
• Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2023 03:43:23 GMT
• Title: Ghosting the Machine: Judicial Resistance to a Recidivism Risk Assessment Instrument
• Authors: Dasha Pruss
• Abstract summary: I find that judges overwhelmingly ignore a recently-implemented sentence risk assessment instrument, which they disparage as "useless," "worthless," "boring," "a waste of time," "a non-thing," and simply "not helpful" I argue that this algorithm aversion cannot be accounted for by individuals' distrust of the tools or automation anxieties, per the explanations given by existing scholarship. These findings shed new light on the important role of organizational influences on professional resistance to algorithms, which helps explain why algorithm-centric reforms can fail to have their desired effect.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recidivism risk assessment instruments are presented as an 'evidence-based' strategy for criminal justice reform - a way of increasing consistency in sentencing, replacing cash bail, and reducing mass incarceration. In practice, however, AI-centric reforms can simply add another layer to the sluggish, labyrinthine machinery of bureaucratic systems and are met with internal resistance. Through a community-informed interview-based study of 23 criminal judges and other criminal legal bureaucrats in Pennsylvania, I find that judges overwhelmingly ignore a recently-implemented sentence risk assessment instrument, which they disparage as "useless," "worthless," "boring," "a waste of time," "a non-thing," and simply "not helpful." I argue that this algorithm aversion cannot be accounted for by individuals' distrust of the tools or automation anxieties, per the explanations given by existing scholarship. Rather, the instrument's non-use is the result of an interplay between three organizational factors: county-level norms about pre-sentence investigation reports; alterations made to the instrument by the Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission in response to years of public and internal resistance; and problems with how information is disseminated to judges. These findings shed new light on the important role of organizational influences on professional resistance to algorithms, which helps explain why algorithm-centric reforms can fail to have their desired effect. This study also contributes to an empirically-informed argument against the use of risk assessment instruments: they are resource-intensive and have not demonstrated positive on-the-ground impacts.

Related papers

• Hybrid Deep Learning for Legal Text Analysis: Predicting Punishment Durations in Indonesian Court Rulings [0.0]
  This study develops a deep learning-based predictive system for court sentence lengths. Our model, combining CNN and BiLSTM with attention mechanism, achieved an R-squared score of 0.5893.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-26T07:07:48Z)
• Evidence of What, for Whom? The Socially Contested Role of Algorithmic Bias in a Predictive Policing Tool [0.9821874476902969]
  We show that stakeholders from different groups articulate diverse problem diagnoses of the tool's algorithmic bias. We find that stakeholders use evidence of algorithmic bias to reform the policies around police patrol allocation. We identify the implicit assumptions and scope of these varied uses of algorithmic bias as evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T13:03:33Z)
• A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming [124.89885800509505]
  Some researchers fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T20:55:08Z)
• The Ethics of Automating Legal Actors [58.81546227716182]
  We argue that automating the role of the judge raises difficult ethical challenges, in particular for common law legal systems. Our argument follows from the social role of the judge in actively shaping the law, rather than merely applying it. Even in the case the models could achieve human-level capabilities, there would still be remaining ethical concerns inherent in the automation of the legal process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-01T13:48:46Z)
• The Progression of Disparities within the Criminal Justice System: Differential Enforcement and Risk Assessment Instruments [26.018802058292614]
  Algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs) increasingly inform decision-making in criminal justice. Problematically, the extent to which arrests reflect overall offending can vary with the person's characteristics. We examine how the disconnect between crime and arrest rates impacts RAIs and their evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-12T16:06:40Z)
• Measuring Equality in Machine Learning Security Defenses: A Case Study in Speech Recognition [56.69875958980474]
  This work considers approaches to defending learned systems and how security defenses result in performance inequities across different sub-populations. We find that many methods that have been proposed can cause direct harm, like false rejection and unequal benefits from robustness training. We present a comparison of equality between two rejection-based defenses: randomized smoothing and neural rejection, finding randomized smoothing more equitable due to the sampling mechanism for minority groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-17T16:19:26Z)
• An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of New York's Bail Reform on Crime Using Synthetic Controls [42.46285127613324]
  New York State's Bail Elimination Act went into effect on January 1, 2020, eliminating money bail and pretrial detention for nearly all misdemeanor and nonviolent felony defendants. Our analysis of effects on aggregate crime rates after the reform informs the understanding of bail reform and general deterrence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-16T17:59:02Z)
• The Impact of Algorithmic Risk Assessments on Human Predictions and its Analysis via Crowdsourcing Studies [79.66833203975729]
  We conduct a vignette study in which laypersons are tasked with predicting future re-arrests. Our key findings are as follows: Participants often predict that an offender will be rearrested even when they deem the likelihood of re-arrest to be well below 50%. Judicial decisions, unlike participants' predictions, depend in part on factors that are to the likelihood of re-arrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-03T11:09:10Z)
• Equality before the Law: Legal Judgment Consistency Analysis for Fairness [55.91612739713396]
  In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo) We simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. We employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-25T14:28:00Z)
• Overcoming Failures of Imagination in AI Infused System Development and Deployment [71.9309995623067]
  NeurIPS 2020 requested that research paper submissions include impact statements on "potential nefarious uses and the consequences of failure" We argue that frameworks of harms must be context-aware and consider a wider range of potential stakeholders, system affordances, as well as viable proxies for assessing harms in the widest sense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-26T18:09:52Z)
• A Risk Assessment of a Pretrial Risk Assessment Tool: Tussles, Mitigation Strategies, and Inherent Limits [0.0]
  We perform a risk assessment of the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), a software used in San Francisco and other jurisdictions to assist judges in deciding whether defendants need to be detained before their trial. We articulate benefits and limitations of the PSA solution, as well as suggest mitigation strategies. We then draft the Handoff Tree, a novel algorithmic approach to pretrial justice that accommodates some of the inherent limitations of risk assessment tools by design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-14T23:56:57Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.